If D is let say a property owner, with a duty to P as an invitee, and X a robber comes onto D's property and takes a wad of cash from P, or otherwise causes economic harm to P, but no emotional or physical harm.

Assuming D had a duty and was the proximate cause, is this pure economic harm, where generally D would have no duty to protect against?

TFR wrote:If D is let say a property owner, with a duty to P as an invitee, and X a robber comes onto D's property and takes a wad of cash from P, or otherwise causes economic harm to P, but no emotional or physical harm.

Assuming D had a duty and was the proximate cause, is this pure economic harm, where generally D would have no duty to protect against?

How do you analyze such a situation?

This is not a pure economic loss, this would be loss of property. Think of pure economic loss as the loss of potential gain.